Recent Forum on the November Immigrant Propositions
10/25/06 | Arizona Daily Star
Marisol Moya stood outside Pima Community College's East Campus Tuesday night, clutching a sign against Proposition 300.
A native of Mexico and an adult-education student, Moya, one of a handful of people protesting Proposition 300, said she was concerned the measure would limit her opportunity for work and cultural integration.
"I disagree because if I don't have adult education, I don't have an opportunity right now," she said in English.
Inside, Proposition 300 and the three other immigration initiatives on the ballot took center stage in a panel discussion on this year's ballot measures. About 25 people attended the discussion.
The round table was moderated by KUAT-TV newscaster Chris Conover and was designed to give voters insight into the various propositions on the ballot.
Proposition 300 would require legal residency to receive some state services such as adult education, child-care assistance and in-state tuition.
Panelist John Richardson, a partner in the law firm DeConcini, McDonald, Yetwin & Lacy and specialist in employment and education law, questioned how the proposition would deter people from coming across the border, much less benefit people who were brought to the country illegally at an early age.
Panelist Alonzo Morado, state director of Democracia USA, a nonpartisan organization dedicated to increasing Hispanic civic participation, said the legislation would create a "two-tiered system of citizenship."
The panel also critiqued the other three immigration measures in a similar fashion, with panelist Suzanne Cummins, a lecturer and fellow in the UA's Eller College of Management, the only one who sometimes offered a differing view of the measures.
The panelists questioned Proposition 100, which would prohibit bail for illegal entrants who commit serious felonies.
"I hate paying taxes to have more jail capacity if it is not necessary," Cummins said.
Cummins broke from the panel on Proposition 102, which would not allow illegal entrants to receive punitive damages from civil lawsuits, saying it didn't make any sense to provide punitive damages for people who weren't supposed to be in the country in the first place.
However, Richardson questioned the rationale for beginning tort reform with illegal entrants.
All the panelists questioned the value of Proposition 103, which would make English the official language of the state, albeit with a number of exceptions.
The five panelists also tackled other initiatives on the ballot, but it was the immigration initiatives that drew the most intense discussion and the bulk of the time.
For those who missed the forum, Conover said it would be replayed numerous times on KUAT over the next two weeks.